Indiana Judge Says Abortion Ban Violates Religious Freedom

A judge in Marion County, Indiana has blocked Indiana's near-total abortion ban on the grounds that it violates religious freedom. 

Earlier this month, Judge Christina R. Klineman issued a ruling stopping the state's abortion restrictions from being enforced against any Indiana resident who objects to them on religious grounds. The decision concluded that there is "significant public interest in ensuring the religious freedom of all citizens." 

The basis? Indiana's own Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a law originally passed to ensure that government policy could never trample on a person's sincerely held religious beliefs. As it turns out, that principle may apply in more directions than its backers anticipated.

What Constitutes a Life?

The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU of Indiana on behalf of five anonymous women and an organization called Hoosier Jews for Choice. 

Their argument was simple: Indiana's abortion ban effectively enshrines one religious view of when life begins above all others. Under Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a living person only at birth, and Islam does not hold that a fetus is ensouled at the moment of conception. 

For women whose sincere religious beliefs align with those traditions, a total abortion ban constitutes the government taking a theological side.

The ACLU's Stevie Pactor said it plainly after the ruling: "Religious freedom protects people of many faiths and beliefs, not just those favored by the state."

A similar legal effort was launched by Jewish plaintiffs in Florida several years ago, but was ultimately shot down.  

A Genuine Theological Dispute

What makes this case unusual – and worth paying attention to – is that both sides are making religious arguments.

This comes down to a disagreement between faith traditions about when life begins, what moral obligations we owe to a developing fetus, and whether any government can impose one tradition's answer on everyone else.

Those opposing the ruling have been equally clear about where they stand. Alexander Mingus of the Indiana Catholic Conference argued that religious freedom laws were passed to protect religious practice, not to protect the ending of a human life. 

Indiana Right to Life called the ruling "a perversion of the law's intent," warning that if it stands, any claimed spiritual belief could be invoked to justify an abortion. The state has already appealed the decision.

Where Do Things Go From Here?

The implications of this ruling are in some ways limited, but in others greatly consequential. It was a class action lawsuit, and the ruling regarding abortion access only applies to women with genuine religious objections to the law – not to everyone. 

However, the implications are huge, and may reach well past state lines. Because the decision was grounded in Indiana's religious freedom law (which mirrors similar laws in other states as well as federal statute) the legal logic could soon be tested elsewhere. 

If the ruling survives appeal, expect more lawsuits to spring up. 

What are your thoughts? When different faith traditions hold deeply incompatible beliefs about when life begins, whose theology (if any) should the law reflect?